Latest evidence from the news
THERE IS NOTHING MORE compelling than fresh examples which demonstrate the severity of the issues, so here are some reports and opinions that emerged this morning.
Report on Free Software Free Society, 2008.
[...]
But this revolution is being threatened by monopolists who wish to control the generation and dissemination of knowledge. Venkatesh Hariharan, Eben, Mishi and Marco gave presentations on the current state of that stupid idea called software patents.
For if anything other than royalty-free terms are adopted, open source is effectively locked out – something that Microsoft knows full well, which is why it has pushed for “Reasonable and non-discriminatory licensing” (RAND). At first sight, this appears fair enough – after all, if it is non-discriminatory, what's not to like?
But the point is that it is not possible for free software programs to support even nominal licensing fees, since the unlimited, unchecked distribution of code makes it impossible to monitor how much should be paid.
This has made its stockholders particularly partisan, as its stock has risen and fallen in synchrony with its fortunes in court, and its detractors particularly irate, because they view Rambus not only as a patent troll, but also as one that has gamed the standards development process during the creation of a universally adopted SDRAM memory standard. Hundreds of millions, and perhaps billions, of dollars of royalties are at stake.
On the kernel page a few weeks ago, we took a look at KSM, a technique to reduce memory usage by sharing identical pages. Currently proposed for inclusion in the mainline kernel, KSM implements a potentially useful—but not particularly new—mechanism. Unfortunately, before it can be examined on its technical merits, it may run afoul of what is essentially a political problem: software patents.
A report from LWN.net suggests that there may be a patent problem with KSM, a memory management technology that is a candidate for inclusion in a future version of Linux. KSM attempts to extend the idea of sharing memory pages between processes from just managing shared libraries, to any identical memory pages, such as running multiple copies of the same program, or virtualised guest operating systems.
“The idea is to create a defensive patent shield or no-fly zone around Linux,” says Keith Bergelt, the chief executive officer of Open Invention Network, the consortium launching the site. The core members of that group, formed in 2005, are IBM, NEC, Novell NOVL, Philips, Red Hat RHT and Sony.
--Richard Stallman
Comments
Rolv Heggenhougen
2008-12-16 08:49:41
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-16 08:53:46
Rolv Heggenhougen
2008-12-16 09:00:27
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-16 09:03:31
Rolv Heggenhougen
2008-12-16 10:21:07
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-16 10:31:34
Ketchikan
2008-12-16 10:42:16
"After considering evidence regarding the JEDEC members’ understanding of the JEDEC policy, this court determined that “Rambus’s duty to disclose extended only to claims in patents or applications that reasonably might be necessary to practice the standard.” Id. at 1100. Applying that rationale to the claims at issue and the evidence in the case, it stated that “[t]he record shows that Rambus’s claimed technology did not fall within the JEDEC disclosure duty.” Id. at 1104. Accordingly, this court concluded that “substantial evidence does not support the jury’s verdict that Rambus breached its duties under the EIA/JEDEC policy.” (Judge Prost, CAFC)
How could Rambus be guilty of not disclosing patents and patent applications that they did not posses while members of JEDEC?
The whole Rambus "JEDEC misconduct" narrative has no bearing with reality and was propagated by a convicted pact of patent pirates.
Rolv Heggenhougen
2008-12-16 10:42:37
Judge Prost's opinion in the recent Qualcomm v. Broadcom CAFC ruling:
"After considering evidence regarding the JEDEC members’ understanding of the JEDEC policy, this court determined that “Rambus’s duty to disclose extended only to claims in patents or applications that reasonably might be necessary to practice the standard.” Id. at 1100. Applying that rationale to the claims at issue and the evidence in the case, it stated that “[t]he record shows that Rambus’s claimed technology did not fall within the JEDEC disclosure duty.” Id. at 1104. Accordingly, this court concluded that “substantial evidence does not support the jury’s verdict that Rambus breached its duties under the EIA/JEDEC policy.”
The "ambush" was made by the memory manufacturing cartel, actually in full daylight. The same companies found quilty by the DOJ and ordered to pay close to $1b in fines and having key employees go to jail.
Please read the FTC ALJ ID: http://rambus.org/legal/ftc/id.txt
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-16 10:47:06
There is no such thing as "patent pirates".
Rolv Heggenhougen
2008-12-16 10:49:59
SUMMARY OF THE DECISION Complaint Counsel have failed to sustain their burden of proof with respect all three of the violations alleged in the Complaint. First, the evidence at trial establishes that Complaint Counsel failed to prove the facts they alleged in the Complaint. Second, an analysis of the legal theories advanced by Complaint Counsel demonstrates that there is no legal basis for finding a violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commssion Act, either as based on other antitrust laws or solely as an unfair method of competition. Third, an application of the facts established at trial to the legal theories asserted leads to the conclusion that Complaint Counsel have failed to prove their case. The evidentiary record demonstrates that: (1) the EINJEDEC patent policy encouraged the early, voluntary disclosure of essential patents and Respondent did not violate this policy; (2) the case law upon which Complaint Counsel rely to impose antitrust liability is clearly distinguishable on the facts of this case; (3) Respondent s conduct did not amount to deception and did not violate any "extrinsic duties " such as a duty of good faith to disclose relevant patent information; (4) Respondent did not have any undisclosed patents or patent applications during the time that it was a JEDEC member that it was obligated to disclose; (5) amendments to broaden Respondent's patent applications while a member of JEDEC were not improper , either as a matter of law or fact; (6) by having a legitimate business justification for its actions, Respondent did not engage in exclusionary conduct; (7) Respondent did not intentionally mislead JEDEC by knowingly violating a JEDEC disclosure rule; (8) there is no causal link between JEDEC standardization and Respondent's acquisition of monopoly power; (9) members of JEDEC did not rely on any alleged omission or misrepresentation by Respondent and, if they had, such reliance would not have been reasonable; (10) the challenged conduct did not result in anticompetitive effects, as Complaint Counsel did not demonstrate that there were viable alternatives to Respondent's superior technologies; (11) the challenged conduct did not result in anti competitive effects as the challenged conduct did not result in higher prices to consumers; and (12) JEDEC is not locked in to using Respondent's technologies in its current standardization efforts. For these reasons, Complaint Counsel have failed to sustain their burden to establish liability for the violations alleged. Accordingly, the Complaint is DISMISSED.
SUMMARY OF LIABILITY For the above stated reasons, Complaint Counsel, the party with the burden of proof, have failed to establish the elements necessary for finding liability on Counts , II and III of the Complaint. A review of the three violations alleged in the Complaint shows that although Respondent is in possession of monopoly power in the relevant markets, Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that Respondent engaged in a pattern of exclusionary, anticompetitive conduct which subverted an open standards process, or that Respondent utilized such conduct to capture an unlawfl monopoly in the technology-related markets. Analyzing the challenged conduct under established principles of economics and antitrust law and utilizing the preponderance of evidence standard, Complaint Counsel have not proven the elements necessary to support a finding ofliability.
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS OF LAW Jurisdiction and Burden of Proof 1. Pursuant to Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 US. c. ~ 45, the Commssion has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding and over Respondent, Rambus Inc. 2. Respondent is organized, existing and doing business under and by virtue of the laws of the state of Delaware, with its offce and principal place of business located at 4440 EI Camino Road Real, Los Altos, California 94022. 3. Respondent is a corporation, as "corporation" is defined in Section 4 of the Federal Trade Commssion Act, 15 US. c. ~ 44. 329 4. Respondent' s acts and practices, including the acts and practices alleged in the Complaint, are in or afect commerce as "commerce" is defined in Section 4 of the Federal Trade Commssion Act, 15 US. C. ~ 44. 5. Pursuant to ~ 3. 43 (a) of the Federal Trade Commssion s Rules of Practice, Complaint Counsel bear the burden of proof of establishing each element of the violations alleged in the Complaint by a preponderance of the evidence. The Relevant Markets and Monopoly Power 6. The relevant geographic market for purposes of determning the possession of monopoly power in this case is the world. 7. The relevant product markets at issue in this proceeding involve technologies that are incorporated in DRAs for use in current and recent generation personal computers and other electronic memory devices. Each market consists of a type of technology that addresses a specific aspect of memory design and operation. The four relevant product markets are: (1) the latency technology market; (2) the burst length technology market; (3) the data acceleration technology market; and (4) the clock synchronization technology market. In addition, there is a cluster market of synchronous DRA technologies. 8. Complaint Counsel have demonstrated that Respondent has acquired monopoly power in the relevant markets. However, Complaint Counsel have not demonstrated that Respondent's acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power was unlawfl. No Pattern of Anticompetitive Acts and Practices 9. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that Respondent s challenged conduct amounted to a pattern of anticompetitive acts and practices. 330 10. Complaint Counsel' s legal theory, i. , that Respondent's challenged conduct violated Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commssion Act, which proscribes "unfair methods of competition " lacks a reasonable basis in law. 11. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that the duties upon which they base their challenge are clear and unambiguous. 12. The evidence presented at trial does not provide a factual basis for finding a pattern of anticompetitive acts and practices. 13. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that amendments to broaden patent applications are improper, either under patent law or EIA/JEDEC rules. No Exclusionary Conduct 14. Respondent has demonstrated that there were legitimate business justifications for the conduct challenged by Complaint Counsel. Maintaining the confdentiality of the proprietary information contained in its patent applications clearly related to a legitimate and normal business purpose and thus precludes a finding of exclusionary conduct in this case. 15. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that mere participation in a standard setting organization, without more, can form the basis for excluding a member s legitimate right to protect its trade secrets from disclosure. 16. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that Respondent engaged in exclusionary conduct for reasons extrinsic to the antitrust laws. No Intent 17. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that Respondent intended to mislead or 331 deceive JEDEC. 18. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that Respondent s challenged conduct rises to a level where intent can be inferred. 19. Evidence in the record indicates that Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that the intent element has been met. No Causation 20. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate a causal link between JEDEC standardization and Respondent s acquisition of monopoly power. 21. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that Respondent acquired monopoly power by virtue of JEDEC standard setting. 22. The evidence demonstrates that Respondent acquired monopoly power as a result of its superior technology and Intel' s choice ofRambus s technology. 23. To the extent that Complaint Counsel' s Section 5 cause of action is based upon a breach of duty to disclose under JEDEC's rules , Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that Respondent's omissions or misrepresentations were relied upon by JEDEC or that such reliance was reasonable. No Anticompetitive Effects 24. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that there were viable alternatives to Respondent' s technologies. 25. Complaint Counsel' s economic expert failed to demonstrate that "equal or superior 332 alternatives were excluded by Respondent' s challenged conduct. 26. Under the economic theory of "revealed preference " the evidence demonstrates that even if Respondent had made the additional disclosures alleged to have been required, rational manufacturers and a rational JEDEC would have selected Respondent' s technologies because the proposed alternatives were inferior. 27. Complaint Counsel have failed to demonstrate that Respondent's challenged conduct resulted in higher prices to the consumer. 28. The evidence indicates that Respondent's royalty rates are reasonable. 29. The evidence indicates that Respondent's royalty rates are nondiscriminatory. JEDEC Is Not Locked In To Respondent' s Technologies 30. The evidence indicates that DRA manufacturers were not locked in to using Respondent' s technologies at any point from 1990 to the present. 31. JEDECs continued use of Respondent' s technologies is due to the fact that Rambus technologies are superior in cost/performance terms to any alternatives, despite Rambus s royalty rates. 333 ORDER Accordingly, Complaint Counsel having failed to sustain its burden of establishing liability for the violations alleged, the Complaint is DISMISSED. Chief Administrative Law Judge February 23 , 2004 Washington, D. C. 334
Ketchikan
2008-12-16 11:13:15
It was been proven in a court of law that members of the DRAM cartel knew of Rambus patents which were deemed to be valid, enforceable and infringed thus calling their deliberate infringement as patent piracy is pretty accurate.
If you prefer you can call them patent/IP thieves...
But back to my previous point, per Judge Prost's ruling, How could Rambus be guilty of not disclosing patents and patent applications that they did not posses while members of JEDEC?
Jo Shields
2008-12-16 11:18:54
What connection is there between RAMBUS and Novell? None! Should they be a topic on a site called "Boycott Novell"? No!
Rolv Heggenhougen
2008-12-16 12:00:32
Jo Shields
2008-12-16 12:28:49
Roy Schestowitz
2008-12-16 14:03:44
Patents are not to be confused with ideas.
Piracy often involves death and rape. Patents are not cargo, either.
Fiery Spirited
2008-12-18 08:05:42
At the end of the day it is pretty simple...both these ideas can not be true at the same time. Either Rambus had patents in the area that they should have disclosed or they did not have patents and have been stealing the work of JEDEC members.
What Rambus have been doing is the essence of a patent troll ambush no matter if Rambus is a troll or not normally. What remains to be seen if the laws are written well enough to nail Rambus for their behavior. There is no contradiction between that Rambus might walk free due to lack of evidence and that they in reality might be guilty of the charges.